Did Germany Have an Infinite Gasoline Hack I am Unaware of?

[bombsaway]

[...]
He doesn't want to argue the wood angle, so he threw out this liquid fuels thing as a deflection tactic.

lol it would be insane for anyone to ignore the Hoefle telegram and use instead the much more speculative estimates [of 'missing Jews'] people were going with before.

The stuff in green is related and relevant. The one in red is... not.

bombsaway is so completely destroyed that his tangents/deflections aren't even in the same ballpark anymore. Not even the same town.

Oof

what lol, this is my post again. in bold is what I was responding to. Was I fairly quoted here? Does this represent the general level of intelligence / self imposed idiocy on this forum?

Ok, we are going to highlight something with regard to the arguments put forth by Bombsaway.

It started with 'using purely liquid fuel was entirely possible for the Reich'.



Then we moved on to something else.



You see, because the testimony doesn't align with the original supposition, there was a pivot, and a testimony was put forward.



After this pivot was brushed off when I informed him that he needed 'another testimony', Bombsaway didn't even blink.

This is because he doesn't have any integrity, only a position. Any testimony that vaguely eludes to a point he is trying to make is always put forward in isolation and disregarding the body of all witnesses in favor of what one witness has said about some particular Bombsaway feels supports his position.

It is incredibly slimy and dishonest, but, at least he is consistent about it...

The 'pure liquid fuel' hypothesis is ridiculous and unsupported, but, Bombsaway won't be swayed by small problems like facts...

This is bombsaway 101. He's been doing it for years. Another good example is the Kola thread where (among other things) he was trying to argue that the number of whole bodies that were buried was vastly lower than what is indicated in all the official sources. You see, Arad is merely a secondary source. BA is contrast is greatly superior scholar who uses primary sources, i.e., he cherry-picks little bits of testimony from websites and then wildly extrapolates, even if this contradicts all of the professional historians.

He doesn't want to argue the wood angle, so he threw out this liquid fuels thing as a deflection tactic.

lol it would be insane for anyone to ignore the Hoefle telegram and use instead the much more speculative estimates people were going with before.

[Callafangers]

what lol, this is my post again. in bold is what I was responding to. Was I fairly quoted here? Does this represent the general level of intelligence / self imposed idiocy on this forum?

Wait -- I guess I have been a total fool, then... am I understanding that you attempted to argue that the official sources claim too many bodies at Belzec? Forgive me, bombsaway, I was definitely stupid to not think that you would claim this.

I accept your revisionism. Please proceed.

[bombsaway]

what lol, this is my post again. in bold is what I was responding to. Was I fairly quoted here? Does this represent the general level of intelligence / self imposed idiocy on this forum?

Wait -- I guess I have been a total fool, then... am I understanding that you attempted to argue that the official sources claim too many bodies at Belzec? Forgive me, bombsaway, I was definitely stupid to not think that you would claim this.

I accept your revisionism. Please proceed.

Official sources? What is this fuckery? A search on google reveals the ushmm and belzec official museum use my "low figure" rather than 600k or whatever. What happened was the Hoefle note presented a contemporaneous documented figure, and woah the "official" sources went with it. Its such a silly point to make and worst of all, Archie raised it as a 'hall of shame' moment for me. If my goal on this forum was to humiliate revisionists, I wouldn't live this down.

The truth is that I barely have any original thoughts about the Holocaust. Even the stuff about paint in the Auschwitz Kremas, I was just echoing Rudolf on what said about the Dachau gas chambers, which exhibited no staining due to being "professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water". If at Dachau, why not at the Auschwitz Kremas?

[Nessie]

... I have to ask, did the Germans have a fuel hack I am unaware of?

The majority of cremations took place in the first half of 1943. Where is your evidence of fuel shortages then?

We have gone from the bodies were obliterated with a couple of cords of green pine, to, the bodies were obliterated with a couple of gallons of 'benzene', 'petrol', 'gasoline' or 'diesel'...

You have made that confused narrative up. From the start, the evidence was from local witnesses, who reported months of cremation activity from the camps. Then from witnesses inside the camps, there were descriptions of various attempts to cremate corpses, starting with inside the graves, to then settle on the use of pyres. Those pyres worked by piling decomposing corpses on top of metal rails and using some fuel and wood to start the pyres. The corpses would then catch fire and burn. After hours of burning, the partially cremated remains would be then be reburied, with some evidence of cremains being rendered. Exactly what quantities of wood and fuel were used, is not known.

The witness descriptions are corroborated by the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf and the physical remains found at the AR camps and Chelmno.

[Callafangers]

From the start, the evidence was from local witnesses, who reported months of cremation activity from the camps. Then from witnesses inside the camps, there were descriptions of various attempts to cremate corpses, starting with inside the graves, to then settle on the use of pyres. Those pyres worked by piling decomposing corpses on top of metal rails and using some fuel and wood to start the pyres. The corpses would then catch fire and burn. After hours of burning, the partially cremated remains would be then be reburied, with some evidence of cremains being rendered. Exactly what quantities of wood and fuel were used, is not known.

Hilarious how huge the scale of what you're claiming is relative to the evidence (in both quality and quantity) that you put forth to support it.

"From the start" there were reports of lots of absurdities, but also reports that some burning (including at least some corpses) was taking place there. But we also know that giant trash heaps were being burnt at these camps, including but not limited to any of the property being sorted which needed to be disposed of (which, one can imagine in a typhus/lice epidemic, was more than a few items on a regular basis). So, there's lots of burning. Of course, there were also diseased corpses, and they too were a sanitation risk, and cremation was by far the best option to handle that matter. So, even if we take all claims of "I saw smoke" or even "I smelled burning corpses" as valid, you're still far short of your conclusions. So, we are forced to turn to documents, testimony, and other witnesses, right?

But your other witnesses are outrageous liars...

And your physical evidence reflects scattered cremations.....

And your documentary evidence simply doesn't exist at all.......

This is all very unfortunate for you, which is why Where did they go?™ has become the 'last flag standing' for exterminationists, mainly due to the nature of demographic data being so easy to control and manipulate compared to things like physical evidence, contemporary documents, or consistent patterns in testimony.

But here we are. The 'Holocaust' tale is crumbling, it's just a slow burn. *yawn* I'll wait.

[Nessie]

From the start, the evidence was from local witnesses, who reported months of cremation activity from the camps. Then from witnesses inside the camps, there were descriptions of various attempts to cremate corpses, starting with inside the graves, to then settle on the use of pyres. Those pyres worked by piling decomposing corpses on top of metal rails and using some fuel and wood to start the pyres. The corpses would then catch fire and burn. After hours of burning, the partially cremated remains would be then be reburied, with some evidence of cremains being rendered. Exactly what quantities of wood and fuel were used, is not known.

Hilarious how huge the scale of what you're claiming is relative to the evidence (in both quality and quantity) that you put forth to support it.

The "scale" of evidence to prove mass cremations, is huge. It consists of

- 100% of the Nazi and Jewish eyewitnesses who worked inside the camps in 1942.
- many local people who lived near to the camps
- every archaeological survey of the sites, that have all found large areas of buried cremated remains
- contemporaneous photos showing buried remains
- circumstantial evidence of Nazi operations and motive to destroy evidence and their use of cremation.

"From the start" there were reports of lots of absurdities,

Those "absurdities" are easily explained, as early rumour and hearsay, used in the initial intelligence reports, before more detailed investigations could take place.

... but also reports that some burning (including at least some corpses) was taking place there. But we also know that giant trash heaps were being burnt at these camps, including but not limited to any of the property being sorted which needed to be disposed of (which, one can imagine in a typhus/lice epidemic, was more than a few items on a regular basis). So, there's lots of burning. Of course, there were also diseased corpses, and they too were a sanitation risk, and cremation was by far the best option to handle that matter. So, even if we take all claims of "I saw smoke" or even "I smelled burning corpses" as valid, you're still far short of your conclusions.

That covers people who lived near to the camps, who reported smell and months of burning, but they could not know what was being burnt.

So, we are forced to turn to documents, testimony, and other witnesses, right?

That is normal in any investigation. Gather evidence from as many contemporaneous, relevant sources as possible.

But your other witnesses are outrageous liars...

In your biased opinion.

And your physical evidence reflects scattered cremations.....

You are dishonestly minimising the scale of buried cremated remains that have been found.

And your documentary evidence simply doesn't exist at all.......

That no AR camp, or Chelmno document survives, is evidence of the criminal cover up. Documents prove mass arrivals, with no corresponding mass departures and how AR operated.

This is all very unfortunate for you,

Not really, since it is clearly you being dishonest about the scale of evidence, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what took place inside the camps.

which is why Where did they go?™ has become the 'last flag standing' for exterminationists,

No, it further reinforces the evidence of mass killings and cremations.

...mainly due to the nature of demographic data being so easy to control and manipulate compared to things like physical evidence, contemporary documents, or consistent patterns in testimony.

But here we are. The 'Holocaust' tale is crumbling, it's just a slow burn. *yawn* I'll wait.

It survives because I can evidence what happened and you cannot.

[Callafangers]

The "scale" of evidence to prove mass cremations, is huge. It consists of

- 100% of the Nazi and Jewish eyewitnesses who worked inside the camps in 1942.
- many local people who lived near to the camps
- every archaeological survey of the sites, that have all found large areas of buried cremated remains
- contemporaneous photos showing buried remains
- circumstantial evidence of Nazi operations and motive to destroy evidence and their use of cremation.

Nessie, define "conflicts of interest", will you? Who among "Nazi and Jewish witnesses" that spoke of these camps had none?

And of the "many local people who lived near to the camps", how many confirmed "millions of Jews" burning as opposed to heaps of trash and occasional typhus victims (sometimes Jewish), specifically?

Of your archaeological surveys, what attempt did they make to quantify anything? And of their reported findings, what is the most measured interpretation we can take? Where did all the wood ash and incombustibles go? Where did they bury the burnt property? And as Stubble has asked: where was the latrine?

Did these "contemporaneous photos" show thousands or even hundreds/dozens of crushed Jews?

More embarrassing nonsense from you, simply restating the exterminationist line over and over again, hoping it sticks. You offer no substance. You have one of the weirdest forms of activism I have ever witnessed but it would be better for you to simply admit you are an activist, not an honest researcher.

Those "absurdities" are easily explained, as early rumour and hearsay, used in the initial intelligence reports, before more detailed investigations could take place.

Yes, you can "easily explain" why you are caught with your weener inside your neighbor's wife. That doesn't mean you aren't lying. You make an assumption, here, that these were only "rumor and hearsay". That's all you're offering here, yet the bizarre nature, patterns, timing, and other characteristics of these claims align far better with deception.

That covers people who lived near to the camps, who reported smell and months of burning, but they could not know what was being burnt.

So, now "we could not know what was being burnt"? That seems like a concession on your part. Thanks, I guess.

So, we are forced to turn to documents, testimony, and other witnesses, right?

That is normal in any investigation. Gather evidence from as many contemporaneous, relevant sources as possible.

But your other witnesses are outrageous liars...

In your biased opinion.

And your physical evidence reflects scattered cremations.....

You are dishonestly minimising the scale of buried cremated remains that have been found.

The scale reports only modest and disturbed layers of ash between layers of soil and sand, all taken as core samples 5 meters apart, with rough inference as to what lie between. In no world can these be interpreted to come close to the orders of magnitude required for your interpretation, which is why your colleague bombsaway defends tooth-and-nail his laughable claims of magic gasoline as the primary fuel source.

That no AR camp, or Chelmno document survives, is evidence of the criminal cover up. Documents prove mass arrivals, with no corresponding mass departures and how AR operated.

How is this not identical to "my dog ate my homework"?

It survives because I can evidence what happened and you cannot.

More slogans, you are lame and evidence nothing but your own ideological leanings.

[Callafangers]

Just to bring us into the proper thread, Stubble recently asked bombsaway something along the lines of "How do you believe the cremation at AR camps was actually carried out?"

bombsaway said:

I don't know, there are gaps in the record, esp concerning how thoroughly the bodies were burned, the exact techniques, the ratio of fuel to wood.

While I appreciate the "I don't know" admission, this just won't do. We need to know what your closest estimation of what could have happened is, bombsaway. You need something within a reasonable ballpark of being at least possible, don't you?

Is this an unfair request?

Even if you have to get a bit inventive, just share what you think might have been the most achievable methodology to ridding so many corpses (several hundreds of thousands at each camp) based on the known physical evidence, logistic potential, and archaeological surveys.

Was it 50% petrol and 50% wood by weight (kg)? 20/80? Was it other liquid fuels (non-petrol/gasoline)? And in any case, what was the application? Was it a pool of liquid fuel at the bottom, or layered? Was it poured on top (and just at the beginning, or throughout), or were items (or corpses) soaked before loading?

I really just want to understand at this point what you believe could be the most rational account for so many burnt Jews relative to the physical evidence documented.

[Archie]

This thread is close to getting locked since I don't see the point in debating a silly theory that only bombsaway believes in. Especially now that it's come to light that bombs himself doesn't even believe in it and now says he was just throwing it out as "speculation"! So then this is a theory with zero sincere adherents.

[Stubble]

If you lock it, can you make Fangers Evil Cartoon Nazi Firehose post the last one? The thread was absolutely perfect there in my opinion.

I don't think anything of value would be lost.

It's on page 4, Cowboy was in agreement.

[bombsaway]

This thread is close to getting locked since I don't see the point in debating a silly theory that only bombsaway believes in. Especially now that it's come to light that bombs himself doesn't even believe in it and now says he was just throwing it out as "speculation"! So then this is a theory with zero sincere adherents.

bro take some responsibility, this is from the first page where I said I didn't know . Like bro

I go by witness testimony which states a mix of wood and liquid fuel was used, with the wood being soaked. I don't know the ratio.

[Nessie]

The "scale" of evidence to prove mass cremations, is huge. It consists of

- 100% of the Nazi and Jewish eyewitnesses who worked inside the camps in 1942.
- many local people who lived near to the camps
- every archaeological survey of the sites, that have all found large areas of buried cremated remains
- contemporaneous photos showing buried remains
- circumstantial evidence of Nazi operations and motive to destroy evidence and their use of cremation.

Nessie, define "conflicts of interest", will you? Who among "Nazi and Jewish witnesses" that spoke of these camps had none?

When accused and accuser agree and they are corroborated by physical and other evidence, then the claim made is proven. The accused and witnesses had different conflicts of interest, yet they still corroborate.

And of the "many local people who lived near to the camps", how many confirmed "millions of Jews" burning as opposed to heaps of trash and occasional typhus victims (sometimes Jewish), specifically?

The local people speak of months of burning and a terrible smell. They do not speak to exactly what was being burnt.

Of your archaeological surveys, what attempt did they make to quantify anything?

They recorded the sizes of areas of disturbed ground.

And of their reported findings, what is the most measured interpretation we can take? Where did all the wood ash and incombustibles go? Where did they bury the burnt property?

Excavations show that it was all buried. Wood ash, cremated remains and property were all found buried in the ground.

And as Stubble has asked: where was the latrine?

Read the reports and look at the maps the witnesses produced of each camp, for the locations of latrines.

Did these "contemporaneous photos" show thousands or even hundreds/dozens of crushed Jews?

They show that human remains had been buried at the camps. Quantification from the photos, is limited.

More embarrassing nonsense from you, simply restating the exterminationist line over and over again, hoping it sticks. You offer no substance. You have one of the weirdest forms of activism I have ever witnessed but it would be better for you to simply admit you are an activist, not an honest researcher.

You have done no research at all. You have clearly not familiarised yourself with the archaeological reports, or been able to find evidence to prove what did take place.

Those "absurdities" are easily explained, as early rumour and hearsay, used in the initial intelligence reports, before more detailed investigations could take place.

Yes, you can "easily explain" why you are caught with your weener inside your neighbor's wife. That doesn't mean you aren't lying. You make an assumption, here, that these were only "rumor and hearsay". That's all you're offering here, yet the bizarre nature, patterns, timing, and other characteristics of these claims align far better with deception.

If a report is second, or third hand, then it is not an assumption to say it is rumour or hearsay.

That covers people who lived near to the camps, who reported smell and months of burning, but they could not know what was being burnt.

So, now "we could not know what was being burnt"? That seems like a concession on your part. Thanks, I guess.

You are just further revealing your ignorance of witness evidence.

So, we are forced to turn to documents, testimony, and other witnesses, right?

That is normal in any investigation. Gather evidence from as many contemporaneous, relevant sources as possible.

But your other witnesses are outrageous liars...

In your biased opinion.

And your physical evidence reflects scattered cremations.....

You are dishonestly minimising the scale of buried cremated remains that have been found.

The scale reports only modest and disturbed layers of ash between layers of soil and sand, all taken as core samples 5 meters apart, with rough inference as to what lie between. In no world can these be interpreted to come close to the orders of magnitude required for your interpretation, which is why your colleague bombsaway defends tooth-and-nail his laughable claims of magic gasoline as the primary fuel source.[/quote]

You are again dishonestly misrepresenting the scale of disturbed ground, containing cremated remains, found at the camps.

That no AR camp, or Chelmno document survives, is evidence of the criminal cover up. Documents prove mass arrivals, with no corresponding mass departures and how AR operated.

How is this not identical to "my dog ate my homework"?

Destroying evidence is different from failing to do allocated work.

It survives because I can evidence what happened and you cannot.

More slogans, you are lame and evidence nothing but your own ideological leanings.

Unless you can evidence what did happen, then all you are left with is denial. You rely on obviously flawed arguments and are driven by your ideology.

[HansHill]

bro take some responsibility, this is from the first page where I said I didn't know . Like bro

+$1 in the Bombsaway is not White jar

We should be able to fund Stubble's experiment by now

[Stubble]

Which one? The Blobel one, or the pyre one?